Socialism Is So Hot Right Now. Thank Bernie Sanders DSA Houston

You are literally that dumb.

 

I do not know. A hard working is not a good description in my post, but we have to be rich to have a better life in US, or China too. Poor people just need more helps, but likely they will not get much. I know Switzerland is only country in which everyone can get help from the state or country. I used to live there for a few years.

 

But this would not happen to vast majority of the people in Canada, UK, Japan, Germany, almost all of the developed nations? Why is that? Because we have the freedom to die or go bankrupt! Go USA!

 

LOL check the overall ranking dude. You think you win points by selectively choosing things to focus on and ignoring the overall ranking

 

If you work hard and save some money, you can start a business a lot sooner and with less risk in nations with universal health schemes because you don't have to worry about losing health insurance when you quit your job. It also means your cost of employing others is less as well.

 

Shoerider: I wonder why bernies bill is so much more than Canada's?

Me: lower quality Healthcare

You: your wrong , but here's my chart showing lower quality Healthcare in Canada.

Why don't u go back and read pal. Its an honest mistake you made, you don't have to get worked up about it.

 

No way is that anywhere close to what anyone I know has ever paid. In fact, I lived and worked in Canada for 15 years and so have extensive experience with both systems and can tell you I have never paid a cent for any private insurance, nor have I ever heard of anyone paying for it. Actually its called extended benefits and it was always paid for by my employer.

I like some aspects of the US system, and some of the Canadian system. On the whole the Canadian system wins out because being completely wiped out financially scares the heck out of me. Even if you are insured in the US you are still going to be billed for care. Basically it comes down to whether or not you want things like shorter wait times or do you want to remove the risk of being walloped financially or turned down altogether (for something non-life threatening) because you cannot afford the care. Without a doubt I would choose the single payer system every time. Not having to think about money every time I or my kids get sick was such a relief. That's just me personally. You never see a bill for any sort of care. Ever.

In the end I think there are merits to both sides. My own personal dealings, good and bad, with the Canadian system:

-Colonoscopy - 3 month wait. Non-life threatening but my mother's in the US was the same week. The wait time largely has to do with what priority medically they deem you to have (ie, suspected cancer get it immediately, IBS patients will wait)
-ER visits - no different than US in my experience.
-Heart procedure for an arrhythmia - Initially this sucked. 6-month wait. In Canada if there is a long wait for a procedure that is considered a medical necessity, but there are just not enough doctors available to perform it (in my case), then they will cover the cost of you going somewhere else (another city, province, or the US) to get it done. This is a little known fact about the system. In the end, the wait time ended up being only 3 weeks. I think the average for this procedure in the US is about 6 weeks. This is largely due to prep for it. Quality was top notch FYI.
-GPs - can be a crap shoot, but thankfully you can go to anyone anywhere, so if you don't like one, you can go somewhere else, and they are almost as common as McDonalds.

There are definitely some downsides to socialism (laziness, looking for the government to solve every problem, etc.), but a national health system is not one of them in my opinion.

 

Forgot to mention that I also tore my achilles. Wait time for the surgery was about 12 hours. Quality again was top notch.

Monthly premium for entire family was about $100. This rate depends on family income and this rate was for the top bracket. For the less fortunate, there is no premium.

 

You confuse quality care and quality of healthcare. Quality care is the metric that you try to cling on to from the graph, but that is limited to what you get when you can afford to pay the doctor.Quality of healthcare is everything, including quality care, access, efficiency, etc. Quality of healthcare is the total package, and the USA ranks dead last in that study.

 

Wait, what now? You can't actually believe that insanity. By that same logic then Bush was equally if not more divisive. Remember the whole "you're with us or you're against us" crap? I don't think that of W and I don't think that of O. The country as a whole is getting to be too stupid to know what they are voting for. People stand for issues based on slogans and bumper stickers. You can't paint things in shades of grey anymore if all people have the ability to understand are the duotone colors of black and white alone.

 

No i'm not. Adding the word 'health' in front of the word 'care' (as if we don't know what type of care was being referred to) does not transform it into adding some accessibility component. YOu also completely ignore the whole context of the conversation. But you can go with this if you need to for piece of mind.

shorerider: Why does Bernie's healthcare plan cost so much more than Canada's?

me: Because the quality of CARE (but not healthcare) is so much lower as shown by the long wait times and the chart kindly provided by TheRealist confirming the reduction in quality of CARE (but not healthcare)

 

You're still confused, having the best care in the world doesn't matter if no one can access it. Which is why accessibility is an accepted criteria to grade a country's healthcare quality. Nothing you say or argue will change that.

Semantics aside and big picture wise, many countries with universal healthcare still do better than the USA does in quality care so you're still wrong on a fundamental level.

 

don't disagree but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and you are trying to lie now.

no. accessibility is used to measure the quality of a healthcare system or healthcare market, but not healthcare. Here is the title of the link you posted

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally

Just stop lying. Anyone can go back and read the conversation.....

 

All of those doctors sitting in their breakroom lounge patiently awaiting for someone to walk into the door to over pay for service.

Apparently someone has access to it if it takes a couple days to see a dr.

 

The "with us or against us" talk was speaking to terrorists, the Obama rhetoric, was speaking to and about his political adversaries in America. I hope you realize that there's a difference.

Now I'm not saying it's just an Obama thing, I pointed out that IMO it really all started during the Bush administration, you just didn't point to a relevant example. Ever since some point during the Bush administration, post 9-11, the country has become increasingly divisive and 8 years of Obama's divisive rhetoric and attitude certainly didn't help anything....and Trump will only make it worse.

When you say that people are seeing things in black and white, we're agreeing though. That's a result of the divisiveness of the past decade or so. Now far too many see it as "us vs them" where "us" are the good people and the "them" are evil people.

 

For an individual there is a difference between healthcare and healthcare system, but for populations, which is what we are talking about, they are the same thing. Let's say there are two people, A and B, and A cannot get healthcare while B gets the best treatment possible. Person B can say that healthcare was good, but the "healthcare system" was bad because he knows Person A. For a population though (both A&B), you cannot say that healthcare was good. Your distinction makes no sense in the context of a population of people.

 

So this is the full quote right?

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".

It's a reasoning why a group of people could potentially isolate themselves when they feel disregarded, desperate and hopeless. He's criticizing the social institution instead of the group of people.


On the video, are you putting Republican interest above that of the middle class?

I will just say that personally, I felt the environment with Bush's term is that anybody that felt anti-war or was against the broad sweeping patriot act (and the anti-islam sentiment) was called unpatriotic. You had people calling for water boarding and insulting anyone that dared to question it.

 

This is why Republicans like to say everyone has access to health care as if it means everyone can get and afford health care. Playing word games with people's lives.

 

This is why Democrats like to talk about how many people are technically insured as if it means they can get and afford health care. Playing word games with people's lives.

 

I think you are generalizing somewhat. How exactly are you defining "quality of care"? Are you talking about infrastructure? Knowledge of the doctors? My comment about the BMW vs the Toyota wasn't really aimed at life or death - more the quality of care of a national health system as it pertains to non-life endangering items like longer wait times. Actually other than that I am hard-pressed to find a reason why I would consider Canada lower in quality. My experience with specialist doctors in Canada is that they have been every bit as knowledgeable and good as what I have had in the US. So, to that end, I have seen no difference. Longer wait times, yes, and this was very annoying at times (but not for everything is there a wait), but if forced to choose between potentially being socked with a massive bill or waiting, I will wait. Also, the psychological relief from worry that if you or any of your family members ever experience a horrible illness, that you will not face potentially insurmountable medical bills is really hard to overstate.

You have to realize, at least in Canada, it's not like people are having heart attacks or cancer and needing to wait for months for care. At least I have never heard of this (although I'm sure one can find a horror story here or there). Obviously economics play a role in it. If you have a heart condition are extremely wealthy, perhaps you track down the leading cardiologist in the country and pay out of pocket for his services. For most of us this is not reality.

As far as the VA goes, my father was a disabled veteran and many a time I went with him to the VA for care. He was also on medicare, but because medicare is 80/20, often times he could not afford the 20% so he went with the VA. The only reason I saw it being worse was due to the general condition of the patients, which seem to be much worse on average than the general public. Whatever the perception, he always got the care he needed when he went there. Also, money talks of course, and if you are a doctor you are going to go to the private hospital for more money, so perhaps the nature of having both systems in the US plays a role in the overall quality.